Don't leave Afghanistan prematurely

Updated 10:47 pm, Thursday, March 15, 2012

In the wake of the murder of 16 innocent Afghan civilians, allegedly slain by a lone American soldier, the Afghan government is asking the Obama administration to do two things.

The first request should surprise no one. The Afghanis want America to bring the mass murderer to justice, and do so quickly. An open, transparent investigation and trial, conducted fairly but also swiftly, will forward reconciliation. The death penalty must be considered and, if the murderer is convicted, it must be imposed.

The second request, however, is even more morally sobering. It is also more difficult to execute, which means fulfilling it requires steadfast international leadership by President Barack Obama. The Afghan government wants the U.S. and NATO to avoid a rapid and precipitous withdrawal, for it would undercut 10 years of effort and all but certainly restore the Taliban's homicidal regime.

Avoiding Afghani killing fields requires a firm commitment by the Obama administration to create certain minimum conditions before the U.S. departs the country.

At one time, Obama knew what those minimum conditions were. Candidate Obama called Iraq the wrong war and implied Afghanistan was the right one. Obama's 2009 policy study concluded that disrupting and defeating al-Qaida meant the U.S. had to promote “a more capable, accountable and effective” Afghan government, build “increasingly self reliant” Afghan security forces, support civilian constitutional government in Pakistan, and pursue these goals with U.N. and international support.

However, he undermined his own condition-based goals with a politically convenient time scheme: The U.S. would begin to “transition” from Afghanistan in 2011 with 2014 the date for final withdrawal.

Little wonder that the Taliban, their Pakistani supporters and, for that matter, many Afghans who do support the U.S. and NATO mission believe Obama is preparing to desert Afghanistan in 2014.

Perhaps he is. More likely, he doesn't know. The withdrawal timetable was a 2012 election gimmick designed to pre-empt criticism from Vietnam-syndrome “antiwar” Democrats. The March 2012 massacre, however, has ignited cries for immediate abandonment.

We heard this in 2004, with the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. The scandal harmed the U.S. effort in Iraq, for it shook Iraqi confidence in America's moral commitment to build a just society governed by the rule of law. The Bush administration court-martialed the criminals and continued the mission.

The March massacre gives Obama the opportunity to demonstrate he has comparable grit. Halting or reducing 2012's planned troop withdrawals would demonstrate that he is willing to sacrifice his political needs to addressing changing battlefield conditions.

Democrats, to include Obama, reaped tactical political benefit from a mean little ditty about George Bush and Iraq. “Bush lied, people died” was the phrase. Should the Taliban return, a far crueler and more accurate doggerel will brand the Obama administration's legacy: “Obama fled — and left our Afghan allies for dead.”